Romney should no more take "advice" from Bill Keller than the captain of an aircraft carrier should take advice about how to dock the carrier from a 12 year old kid in the dinghy races down at Bill Keller's yacht club.

What is really amazing is that people like Keller say such things with a totally straight face. Moi? A leftist? Nobody here but us chickens! Such people, I've come to realize, really do believe that THEY are the "normal" ones and everyone else is a neanderthal knuckle -dragging extremist.

The quote you cited ("the world is a complex...") reminds me of Oliver North testifying during Iran-Contra. The President probably can't pull that off. Better to be all John Kerry, saying something like "there are nuances embedded in nuances, making America's position in the world both easy and difficult, superior and inferior, and we must chart our course through these waters with a steady hand and a a heartfelt heart."

Keller's comments have nothing to do with trying to help Mitt. It's simply to set up the narrative that Romney is a war mongering neocon and a bastard for "politicizing" the death of four Americans. Because he knows Obama is not going to do well.

A possible path for Romney is to appear Presidential and unthreatening - that he wants to have the US safe and respected - but doesn't ache to start new wars like McCain did. That he wants to give Russia, China, Europe, and Latin America all the respect they should have and work with them for a world that fights the growing chaos and wants to get more peace and prosperity.

That Romney ties each issue back to wanting to make our foreign policy aimed at bettering not foreigner's lives, but men and women in America have more peace, prosperity, jobs.

To minimize the issues right wing saber rattlers want pounded on.Namely:1. Our special friend Israel and the new wars they want America to wage or meddle in. (Syria, Iran)2. With Libya, I would have Romney just ask why under Obama is the public only just waking up to the fact that we had the 1st successful large scale attack involving Al Qaeda since 2001. And what kind of leadership has President Obama shown when he flew off the next day for fundraisers and to meet Beyonce` when Beghazi was a done atrocity and we had 11 other embassies under seige.3. And ask what kind of leadership did Obama display if the public, a month later after the "2nd 9/11 attack", still does not have a clear understanding of what happened and who decided what and who was never informed adequately in A. The leadup to Benghazi B. What happened in DC and inside the military as they observed the 6-hour attack in realtime while the 3am phone was off the hook in the White House living quarters C. The myriad of conflicting stories and "narratives" the White House put out.

In short, hope Romney doesn't act as a prosecutor to ferret out the truth from a dissembling Obama - but leaves the people watching the debate in extreme doubt about Obama's leadership and integrity and competency of he and his Team.

4. Tie Latin America and China to trade and jobs.5. Repeat that America will refocus on working constructively with all nations, but we will not apologize and grovel to get popularity of "Elites" in other lands.

It's always the liberals, the guys who think the only solution to any social problem is to throw more tax money at it, who demand that conservatives "demonstrate that [they] understand the world is a complex, unpredictable, subtle, and rapidly metamorphosing place."

Some people have trouble buying insurance? Massive government program mandating that EVERYONE buy insurance, with taxpayer subsidies to a large number of folks who "can't afford" it. Yay, good answer! Argue that the health care economy is a complex thing, that subtle changes in regulation can drastically improve access to all? Boo, you want poor people to die!

Some kids not getting enough to eat? Mandated taxpayer subsidies for school breakfast and school lunch, available to all so as not to stigmatize those kids on welfare. Yay, good answer! Reduce the taxation and regulatory burden on business so that more people will have jobs and more people can afford to buy their kids food? Boo, you want poor kids to starve!

I'm sick of being lectured to on "complexity" and "subtlety" by the likes of Bill Keller, the liberals with the most simple minds I know.

You'd think that the mainstream media would realize that writing stuff like this really turns off independents. I was a democrat (the insufferable kind) until I finally figured out that the press wasn't reporting the whole truth and that thought it had the right to filter the facts for people instead of letting people decide for themselves. Not only don't I trust the press anymore (and I cancelled my subscriptions to Newsweek and the NYT), but I vote republican more often than not. If the press hadn't been deceptive and manipulative, I think that I'd still be a democrat because the candidates that really turned me off to the democratic party (i.e., Bill Clinton, Kerry and Obama) would never have been on the ticket in the first place because they would have been fully vetted and rejected as being either unfit or unqualified for the office of president. Keller's liberal talking points are really saying that the American people don't need to know the facts or the seriousness of the issues in the middle east, which is insulting.

Apropos my friend's C4s comments--to spell out precisely what policy steps you might take (and this applies to either Obama or Romney) is simply not a good idea. No need to tip our enemies off what we may do is stupid.

I would rather see both candidates spell out their vision for what they regard as out national interest. The policy questions then flow from that formulation and should not be a topic for "debate" in the heat of a presidential election.

IN the closing weeks of debates, rallies and advertising, Mitt Romney has reinvented himself, or re-re-reinvented himself, as a technocrat with a heart.

This is the New York Times, doing its best to piss in Romney's soup after its previous derogations have been overruled by public opinion, once Romney has shown himself, rather than his media image, in the debates.

With respect to "policy" I might point out that back in the late 1940s the then SecState Dean Acheson drew a line around countries that he said were within our national interest. He failed to include Korea in his etch a sketch and that did not work out well in 1950. Our enemies look at both what say and what we do. Deviations therein can be disastrous.

I would add that the 3rd debate is not about out-Alpha-ing Obama and feeding red meat to war thirsty right wingers...It is about appealing to women, moderates and independents and also send a reassuring message to people that like and favor Obama that he will be President for all the people -100% of them. And while Mitt Romney will work hard for the buried middle class and rural Americans - He will work as hard to help the lives of blacks in the inner cities by making new jobs and paths off government available as he will to help the Jews and well-to-do white women Uptown.

Use the foreign policy debate to reassure Obama supporters that it not a life or death matter to get Obama reelected. That 4 more years of failure in foreign policy and economic matters will be their reward if they vote for Obama.

Its OK...folks....Romney is not a worrisome successor. He has the hope of something better than the dismal future and empty speeches of Obama here and abroad. You don't have to get out and vote for Obama at all costs.

I will work hard for 100% of Americans..to have jobs and be contributors and leave their kids with a better America.

I will do foreign affairs with respect and civility towards friends and rivals. I will not seek conflict, but I will also not betray our friends to appease our enemies.

I believe the half trillion in defense and security cuts Obama wants are unacceptable. But at the same time, I reaffirm that use of military force will be the last resort, when all other measures have failed and only when the safety of Americans stand in risk and Congress is consulted.

I will work relentlessly with Democrats to seek good compromise solutions that serve both party's constituencies well. Both domestically and in foreign policy. I will not repeat President Obama, Harry Reid, and Nancy Pelosi's mistake of shunning negotiations and dialogue with the opposition. We Americans are all in this together.

Probably my suspicion of media going into high gear, but I'm almost apt to agree with Keller here on Benghazi. Not agree because I think Keller is right, agree because I think Keller knows Romney would not listen and so might want to prep the post-debate with inside knowledge.

Benghazi is a tricky topic precisely because the Obama administration can't keep a story straight, owns the media so there's no digging deeper, and that means that Obama could pull something out this evening that totally, once again, throws Romney off his game.

Lie or truth it doesn't matter, the Obama campaign will prepare something that is meant to make Obama sound much more in control than he was or is. There are enough other topics that Romney could emphasize, and in emphasizing those, go around the Obama' teams focus.

Benghazi is what the Obama team expects, and they're still formidable if they've had time to prepare.

This is, of course. my own Vizzini-like over-thinking of the situation.

The NYT is getting antsy as the passengers on flight 92 are ready to roll.

Skimming the comments over there, i found the passengers remarkably docile. I'm not one of those people who believe that American Jews should (or do) put Israel before all else, but I still expected more pushback against the Netanyahu-bashing.

Romney might hit Obama from the left a bit by reminding/informing voters that Obama bombed Libya without Congressional support and that his assassination program, including targeting and assassination a 16 year old US citizen, was also undertaken without the support of Congress. Tie this in with his hot mike promise to Russia that he will subordinate US interests to Russia in his second term. The US needs a foreign policy that Congress has input into and that the people understand. Obama has failed on both fronts.

It's an interesting question. In the aggregate, lefties prefer and pander to urbanites, and righties prefer and pander to ruralites. Most urban communities in the world are roughly unipolitical. I propose that living that close together tends to cause such unipolarity.

"Lie or truth it doesn't matter, the Obama campaign will prepare something that is meant to make Obama sound much more in control than he was or is. There are enough other topics that Romney could emphasize, and in emphasizing those, go around the Obama' teams focus. "

I tend to agree. The Benghazi story was a trap with Candy Crowley a participant. Romney doesn't have to attack tonight. I think he needs to deal with Iran and make the case that we are projecting weakness and weakness invites aggression by our enemies.

Kennedy looked weak to Khrushchev at Vienna in 1961. The result was the Cuban missile crisis. We are dealing with another coming crisis. It is not the time for weakness. Biden may accuse Ryan of wanting war but Carter did the same at Reagan.

What can you expect from Pravda-on the-Hudson? CBS Radio news which has been spinning like a figure skater for Obama for months in a fashion also worthy of the old USSR suddenly broadcast a long piece this AM outlining Obama administration errors in Benghazi and listing debate points for Romney which could have been written by National Review.Does CBS catch a whiff of regime change in the air?

Saint Ronnie didn't "win" the Cold War. He gets credit with many, many other people for taking actions that brought it to a close, bit by bit, over 50 years.

Credit goes to people like George Marshall, Kennan, Eisenhower, Josef Tito, leaders of the W Europe economic miracle of the 50s-70s, Jimmy Carter for initiating the defense buildup and orchestrating the shoving of "human rights" back down the commies throats.Huge credit to Nixon for Detente and triangulating with China.The Czechs and Hungarian rebels. The staunch opposition to the communists by Muslim countries.The non-aligned nation movement. Etc, etc.

Wad a piece or your note paper into the shape of a small white dimpled ball. This will remind your opponent of golf ball and stimulate that portion of his brain that would rather be somewhere else. PIck it up and wave it like a windshield wiper and set it back down without missing a beat delivering a policy position. The incongruent gesture will annoy, lodge and fatally distract. The whole rest of the time he'll be going why did that fucker make a golf ball out of that paper?

Paul Z at 10:10 a.m.: Skimming the comments over there [at the NY Times], i found the passengers remarkably docile. I'm not one of those people who believe that American Jews should (or do) put Israel before all else, but I still expected more pushback against the Netanyahu-bashing.

Are you really surprised by that lack of or weak pushback? Fans of the NY Times long ago got on the anti-Israel bandwagon.